Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90mm for M

[Michael Geschlecht]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Andy,

1 way to tell the difference between the 2 lenses is that the "fat" lenses have scallops with knurls inside of the scallops while the "thin" lenses have knurls all of the way around with no scallops.

Best Regards,

Michael

[luigi bertolotti]

(and they have a different lens' schema, too)

[wizard]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb Michael Geschlecht:

1 way to tell the difference between the 2 lenses is that the "fat" lenses have scallops with knurls inside of the scallops while the "thin" lenses have knurls all of the way around with no scallops.

Correct, thank you.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb luigi bertolotti:

(and they have a different lens' schema, too)

Correct as well, thank you. But was the thin Tele-Elmarit ever produced in chrome? At least I have never seen one so far.

Andy

[pgk]

11 minutes ago, wizard said:

But was the thin Tele-Elmarit ever produced in chrome? At least I have never seen one so far.

Somewhere on the forum I have read that a very few apparently were. But like you I have never seen one.

[ianman]

In the thread below a member states he has one but it turns out he is mistaken.

 

[luigi bertolotti]

4 hours ago, wizard said:

...But was the thin Tele-Elmarit ever produced in chrome? At least I have never seen one so far.

Andy

I frankly think not, though one of the sources (Cameraquest) is usually trustable (*)... but no visual evidence. Imho the only chance is related to Ontario factory, which time to time made unstandard items (like the chrome M4-2) with a certain "freedom"... 

(*) but they declare also the "fat" Tele Elmarit as "very rare" in chrome... which I think is not... you regularly see several in the marketplace...

 

Erwin Puts writes an interesting hipotesis around the thin Tele Elmarit... he says that the "thin" was designed "having in mind" the abandoning of the 135mm focal in favor of a 1,5x extender... a project then abandoned for no good performances. Leitz indeed made a batch of M 1,5x extenders... and their style (black, compact) fits fine the thin TE...  but timing does not fit well with Puts' assertion : extenders seem to have been made around 1980 (according to Puts himself) while the thin TE entered several years before...

Edited June 11, 2021 by luigi bertolotti

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, luigi bertolotti said:

they declare also the "fat" Tele Elmarit as "very rare" in chrome... which I think is not...

I’ve seen that mentioned elsewhere too. According to the wiki only the first ones were chrome and it’s about 12% or so of the total number. I don’t know if that qualifies as rare.

[luigi bertolotti]

According to Puts, at least a batch of 2000 , and I've seen several chromes in the previous and next batch... 2500 could be a reasonable hipotesis... and probably few were thrown away...

[ianman]

You’re right... I misread the numbers in the wiki... mea culpa!

[adan]

So far as I know, and can tell from examples, Leitz began phasing in the engraving of "-M" on lenses once their SLR system formally became the "R system" with the intro of the R3 in 1976. Which also coincided with the "revival" of M production in Canada, and Walter Mandler's reworking of almost all the M lenses in or about 1980 (21rit/28rit/35cron/50cron/75lux/90cron). The "thin" TE 90 (1974) was perhaps the forerunner of that major overhaul, and may have been the first lens to appear with  the "-M" suffix" - eventually.

Which is a bit weird, since the SLR lenses had always been engraved "-R" from the very beginning (1964). But it's Leitz/Leica, so of course it's weird.

I have a feeling Leitz's paradigm was "The SLR system is an interloper - it needs "special" labelling to distinguish it from our core product, whose lenses need no special marking."

But by the late 1970s had decided that the R was at least equal to the M in importance, and thus both needed the same treatment.

..............

As to a chrome TEM(thin) - there might possibly have been one for the "70 years Leica 1913-1983" kits? But I have never seen one even in images

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Andy,

That is interesting. "Interloper"? From the beginning of the M5 around 1971 I have thought of the M5 as Leitz's beginning of the phasing out of their range/viewfinder cameras & replacing them with single lens reflex cameras. Leicaflex cameras had begun production around 1964.

Leitz/Leica have always been first & foremost lens manufacturing companies. Cameras, accessories & such always being secondary.

By the late 1960's it was clear that the dominance of the range/viewfinder camera was ending in photography as a field & single lens reflex cameras were replacing them in many situations. It has always been clear to me that an M5, with its size, shape (But not thickness.) & placement of controls was designed pretty much to be pretty much of a match with a Leicaflex. 

The M5 & the Leicaflex models were often advertised as complementary systems with the M5 being for medium wide angle to short telephoto, from medium distances to about 70cm/28inches. While the Leicaflex models were described as universal cameras that were better outside of the suggested range of the M5. Altho add on's were available for the range/viewfinder system to help to make it more universal.

Best Regards,

Michael

[lct]

1 hour ago, Michael Geschlecht said:

By the late 1960's it was clear that the dominance of the range/viewfinder camera was ending in photography as a field & single lens reflex cameras were replacing them in many situations.

+1. Apparently, Leica was expecting the R system to become the main one then. In Leica catalogues, the Leicaflex SL was mentioned page 54 in 1968 but in 1973 it came up page 5 while the M5 was put away page 30 and R cameras remained at the top in 1976 (SL2 & R3) and 1980 (R4). BTW the "M" prefix for M lenses appeared for the first time in the Leica catalogue from Oct. 1976 AFAIK. The "thin" Tele-Elmarit had no "M" in its name before that IINW. 

Edited June 20, 2021 by lct